WI The US Social Welfare System Was The Norm In Europe?

I think that a great contributor the the European preference for the socialist welfare system stems for the experience of the second world war. In a lot of cases post war the state was the only provider for basic needs, food, water and health - especially during initial reconstruction.

The British perception after the war was that going back to the way things were before was not an option - electorally. Even though the UK was basically stuffed after running itself into the ground fighting for six years, the largely unmet promises of the first world war contributed to the perception that the Labour's welfare state was the best option.

Where as the American experience of the homeland being essentially untouched and the USA being twice as rich as it was before the war, pretty much established that their system worked great as it was.

Unless you have siesmic funding collapse then trying to apply an American system into the current European systems is not going to be acceptable to the population. You just have to look at the response in the UK if the NHS is seen to be threatened - basically it would be electoral suicide.
 
Interesting, that many of you want to change to an US system follwing the second world war when social security was already well established in Europe at the end of the first and was imo irreversible at the latest after the great depression. Only the extent grew in some countries, especially in Britain, after world war two. But there is a reason why the German term Sozialstaat dates from the 1870/80s and the British term welfare state was established in the 1930s (interestingly enough as contrast to the "warfare state" of Nazi Germany).
 
I am certain that European societies under the US model would end up being far more unequal, though attempts have been made through Thatcherite economics to make them so under their current systems already! Ironically Ireland's social welfare system has become quite good for those on the bottom levels including those who have literally never worked, despite being able to do so and yet We are regarded as a very unequal society, probably due to low income taxes on the wealthiest in our society and medium and low paid workers literally having to pay for everything and everybody else!
 

iddt3

Donor
But that's about as relevant as the danish's comment.

You're using a federal system conceived over 200 years ago to measure respective attitudes towards government? This is Sparta.

It might have been conceived 200 years ago, but its still in active use, and Constitutionally its difficult for the US Government to pull off something like National Healthcare. It WILL get challenged in court and there's a chance (even now with Obamacare) that it will be struck down. On the other hand, if a given state want's it's own healthcare system a la Massachusetts where I actually live, the hurdles are substantially lower, both electorally (The liberal consensus in Mass is pretty solid, we like our healthcare) and legally.
 

iddt3

Donor
Considering the major religious movement in the US (the Religious Right) outright hates any sort of welfare system and is quick to slander such ideas a socialist, I'd say that really isn't the case.

That's not quite true, there are plenty (most) of Christians who view helping the poor as a social duty and in other times would have backed state healthcare. Unfortunately Healthcare has become polarized vis a vis birth control and abortion, with the religious right perceiving (rightly or wrongly) that the government is going to make them available for all and cover them, as well as forcing christian doctors and pharmacists to provide them.
 
getting back to the OP... what if the USA fell back into isolationism after WW2 and there was no Marshall Plan... might Europe then not adopt it's current social welfare systems out of sheer lack of funds to do so? Of course, no Marshall Plan would mean a hell of a lot of other problems and butterflies too...
 

BlondieBC

Banned
That's not quite true, there are plenty (most) of Christians who view helping the poor as a social duty and in other times would have backed state healthcare. Unfortunately Healthcare has become polarized vis a vis birth control and abortion, with the religious right perceiving (rightly or wrongly) that the government is going to make them available for all and cover them, as well as forcing christian doctors and pharmacists to provide them.

Agreed.

A constitutional amendment that both expressly mandated national health care and repealed Roe v. Wade would be wildly popular among conservative Christians. A lot of the issues of Obama Care relates to abortion and birth control pills. Outside of birth control and abortion, I have never heard a Christian complain about national health care on a religious basis.
 
getting back to the OP... what if the USA fell back into isolationism after WW2 and there was no Marshall Plan... might Europe then not adopt it's current social welfare systems out of sheer lack of funds to do so? Of course, no Marshall Plan would mean a hell of a lot of other problems and butterflies too...

An interesting premise in the British case is that no Marshall Plan may force the reality that the Empire is dead:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

Though if Britain withdraws from Empire the Americans will probably be feel that they have to have to pick up the roll anyway, or risk Communism spreading unchecked.

For the UK this is probably the best scenario economically and avoids the slow post-war decline.

I would still think some form of welfare state would emerge whatever, just not so all encompassing and generous as actually happened. This might be due to dire national circumstances though as opposed to a vision of cradle to grave social welfare.
 
I have to repeat again, that a pod after ww2 is far too late to reduce social security to todays American levels, even if that war promoted some social measures, most notably in the UK. But for example in Germany the direction was imo set at the latest after the Stinnes-Legien agreement of november 1918, which made unions legitimate partners of business, and probably even earlier.
 
I have to repeat again, that a pod after ww2 is far too late to reduce social security to todays American levels, even if that war promoted some social measures, most notably in the UK. But for example in Germany the direction was imo set at the latest after the Stinnes-Legien agreement of november 1918, which made unions legitimate partners of business, and probably even earlier.

As i wrote before, the social system in most European countries is a result from quite a long and slow development. In order to bring it down to us level you will a quite early change early 1800s at the latest.

I think that a great contributor the the European preference for the socialist welfare system stems for the experience of the second world war. In a lot of cases post war the state was the only provider for basic needs, food, water and health - especially during initial reconstruction.

the welfare systems in europe have very little to do with socialism, simply because its origins predate socialism.
Its the the other way round, socialism saw a good idea and adopted it, and that way it got the socialist label.
 
Probably Europe would be less economically productive. Less entrepreneurialism, less education and skills development, more fear driven conservatism.

While I agree that the USA should have a better social welfare system, I just want to point out that the USA is as or more economically productive than Europe, just as or more innovative, not quite (but still highly) as educated.


A lot more social stress, and probably more street rioting. Europeans don't have the tradition of political docility that Americans seem to exhibit.

Social stresses and rioting in Europe are rather common. I'd argue that Europeans riot more, and social stress not between classes but between "racial" or cultural groups is much higher in places.

True point about American political docility.
 
Last edited:
Top